Dear Colleagues!

Having received only today, 16. VI. 1913, the issues of "Pravda" in expanded format, I hasten to congratulate the editorial board and staff.221 I wish you every success. The main thing now, in my view, is not to forget that we must fight for 100,000 readers. For this it is necessary (1) to produce small, extremely popular Sunday supplements at 1 kopeck. Be sure to write me your opinion on this matter, as well as provide the relevant budget data: that is, how much money was allocated for the format expansion? and what are the current monthly expenses now, how much more than before? The great (and only) danger for "Pravda" now is the loss of a broad readership, the loss of our position in fighting for it.

This is the first practical point, and I would very much ask you to familiarize the publisher with all the practical points, and do not refuse to send me a reply.

(2) On the question of the 7-hour working day for postal employees and so on, the editorial board has made a glaring error. Everyone is prone to error, and there is nothing particularly terrible about this in itself. But, by insisting on the error, the editorial board will for a long time, if not forever, "leave a splinter," damage its reputation and standing both in Russia and in Europe. I was very glad to see from a letter of the secretary that not everyone in the editorial office stood by the error. I earnestly advise you to reconsider the question and take a different position in print (by publishing an article by G. Z. without a byline, on behalf of the editorial board). Two lines would suffice: "having reconsidered the question, the editorial board has arrived at the following conclusion" — article by G. Z. Or: "having reconsidered the question with a fuller composition of the editorial board and contributors." This is worse than simply "having reconsidered."222

Let the liars from "Luch" do a little dance of joy over this correction — only false shame can prevent you from making it. A thousand times worse if "Luch" can forever point to the error. A corrected error disappears. An uncorrected one becomes a suppurating wound. In such cases one must have the courage to go under the knife at once. Otherwise there will be precious little that is pleasant in the withdrawal of a number of friends of "Pravda" — both from individual writers and from organs of the press — from the position of "Pravda."

I most earnestly ask you to discuss all of this and send me a few lines without delay.

(3) Regarding Yu. K., I have already written once. His article on Alekseyenko is excellent. And of course the author can provide such articles constantly. But you don't pay him — this is outrageous!!

He writes to me that he is ceasing to write. I hope you could not have thought that the expansion of the format requires new expenses only for paper and printing. Of course, you anticipated the inevitable increase

in expenses for the literary side as well. Yu. K. must be placed at the very top.

He has no means of livelihood now. It is impossible to lose a contributor to both "Pravda" and "Prosveshcheniye." Therefore I most urgently advise you to make a decision immediately concerning payment to Yu. K-v at 75 (seventy-five) rubles per month. This is the minimum for a permanent contributor to both the newspaper and the journal; remember also the literary-critical section, which in general is weak for us, and without it a "major" newspaper is impossible.

I most earnestly ask for an immediate answer on this. I have a letter from Yu. K. in an ultimative tone, and I consider it my duty to warn the editorial board and publisher of "Pravda" that to conduct an expanded newspaper while refusing such a contributor — I do not know who would consider it possible.

(4) The article by Vitmsky in No. 123 was particularly successful, in my view. I congratulate the author. And Stal, in my view, should be reprinted: excellent!223

I enclose a reply to Vitmsky*, which (the reply) it seems I should send you as well (I did not understand whether Vitmsky's was a personal letter; in my view, it was not).

(5) For a month now, as we are informed, a letter from Aleksinsky regarding "Disputed Questions"** has been lying in the editorial office. I do not understand such an attitude!! The editorial board apparently does not know the situation, does not know the history of the "Forward" group and has fallen into an error regarding Mr. B o g d a n o v (more on that separately). Why then was Aleksinsky's letter not sent here?? It is necessary in order to confer about the only "Forwardist" who had the sense to rise up against the filthy empiriomonism and other abominations disgracing the proletarian party. And the editorial board, by publishing Bogdanov's false letters,224 complicates the matter of a general conference regarding Aleksinsky: perhaps his letter is also no good, but we must confer. For this we very much ask that you send his letter here as quickly as possible and send such things in general.

(6) On the incident with Mr. Bogdanov I am sending separately an appeal to the editorial collegium and to the publisher

* See the present volume, pp. 191-193. Ed.

** See V. I. Lenin. Works, 5th ed., vol. 23, pp. 65-88. Ed.

TO M. S. OLMINSKY. 16 JUNE 1913.

of "Pravda"*. This question is extremely serious. I would very much not want to come out publicly against the "Pravda" editorial board — we have worked together far too long — but support for recallism is for me a sin 1 0 0 times worse than support for liquidationism and not only worse, but more dishonorable. And I, in all conscience, will not be able to refrain from coming out publicly against this support, which has become clear through the publication of Mr. Bogdanov's letter. If this is a mistake, correct it. If not, we shall wage war.

Send Aleksinsky's letter. It is very important. Aleksinsky is having friendly conversations with you, and you send him... Bogdanov!!

(7) I received the money for April. It is necessary to send [money] for May. I very much ask you not to be late. (I urgently need the money for my wife's treatment, for an operation.)

Ready to be of service V. I.

I am terribly afraid that you have not knocked some sense into Plekhanov!! Potresov lies and pours out slop. And silence Plekhanov?? This would be an irreparable mistake.225

Thank you very much for the promise to send the missing issues of "Pravda" and "Luch." You have only mistakenly mentioned once one issue instead of No. 8 (eighth issue) for 1912 (twelve) year. This No. 8 (1912) I very much ask you to send. It was returned to the editorial board in 180 copies from arrest.

Written 16 June 1913

Sent from Poronin to Petersburg

First published in 1933

in Lenin Miscellany XXV

Printed from the manuscript